Can Canada Build More Pipelines? Or LNG Facilities?

In a recent interview with the ECOreport, Simon Fraser University Climate ScientistDr, Kirsten Zickfelddescribed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s idea of fighting climate change while expanding the oil sands and building new pipelines as “delusional.” There is only a finite amount of carbon we can release into the atmosphere and if we hope keep the global temperature rise to 2 degrees C. We are already close to 1.5 degrees and may pass that threshold this year. Even if we do not build any new fossil fuel infrastructure, Canada will exhaust “its’ fair share” of carbon emissions by 2030. These were quite strong statements, so I asked a couple of other scientists – as well as environmentalists, politicians and government spokespersons – Can Canada build more pipelines? Or LNG facilities?

Interview with Dr. Zickfeld

During the course of our interview, Zickfeld had explained that carbon dioxide has a very long lifetime and the changes we are seeing in the atmosphere and oceans are the consequences of past actions. “Even if we stopped (producing) emissions tomorrow, the … (change would not be noticeable) for a very long time.

“Most of the impacts (are) actually happening offshore, so this means that ecologists do not really exactly understand what is going on, but we are seeing the symptoms that something is wrong. Sea level rise is something we will have to live with for many centuries if not millennia, even if we go to a totally decarbonized energy system,” said Zickfeld

“If leaders on the Federal level, and the provinces, are serious about meeting the targets they agreed to in Paris, then there is no room for pipelines or any other fossil fuel infrastructure.”[1. Roy L Hales interview with Dr. Kirsten Zickfeld of Simon Fraser University]

Can Canada Build More Pipelines?

Figure SPM.1(b) Annually and globally averaged sea level change relative to the average over the period 1986 to 2005 in the longest-running dataset. Colours indicate different data sets. All datasets are aligned to have the same value in 1993, the rst year of satellite altimetry data (red). Where assessed, uncertainties are indicated by coloured shading. – Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers, IPCC

I subsequently sent out the following statements[2. Both Environment Canada and the MLA from BC’s NDP asked me to rephrase my questions, which I did.] and asked if they agreed with them:

A number of Climate Scientists are saying we are already close to 1.5 degrees Celsius and, with the lack of commitment governments are showing, it is becoming increasingly unlikely we can hold the rise to 2 degrees.

The extreme weather events we are witnessing today are the consequences of actions taken decades ago. it will be decades before we see the consequences of present actions.

According to a study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the earths battery is running down. At the time of the Roman Empire the earth held 1,000 million tons of carbon in living biomass; as a result of fossil fuel extraction (coal, oil, natural gas, etc) , deforestation, etc the report says we have 550million tons, just above half. According to lead author John Schramski, “Eventually, without sufficient living biomass to run the biosphere, it simply doesn’t matter how much oil, solar, nuclear, etc. energy you have, as there is no biosphere left for humans to use it. Biomass is not an interchangeable energy. There is no replacement and we are depleting it rapidly.”

Extreme weather events are already responsible for human deaths and as they get worse, the number of fatalities will increase.

If the above is true, shouldn’t Canada put a stop to all expansions of the fossil fuel infrastructure? (new pipelines, new LNG projects etc)

The Conservative Party of Canadawas the onlypolitical organization that did not reply, possibly because of their national convention.[3. The Conservatives are also the only political party that did not consent to be interviewed by my ECOreport radio program during the last Federal election. I interviewed the Green, NDP and Liberal candidates in my riding. Powell River – North Island.]

The responses that follow are from

Nathan Cullen, Member of Parliament for Skeena Bulkley Valley, British Columbia, C, and Environment & Climate Change Critic for the New Democratic Party of Canada

George Heyman, Member of Legislative Assembly for Vancouver-Fairview, British Columbia, and Opposition Spokesperson for Environment, Green Economy & Technology

Matt Horne, Associate Regional Director, British Columbia, the Pembina Institute & a member of B.C.’s Climate Leadership Team

Dale Marshall, National Program Manager at Environmental Defence

Peter McCartney, Climate Campaigner, Wilderness Committee

Lynne Quarmby, professor of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry at Simon Fraser University & Science Policy Critic for the Green Party of Canada

spokesperson from British Columbia’s Ministry of the Environment,

spokesperson for Environment Canada;

spokesperson for Natural Resources Canada;

Andrew Weaver, a former Canada Research Chair in climate modelling and analysis in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, Member of Legislative Assembly for Oak Bay – Gordon Head, & Leader of the B.C. Green Party

Matthew Williamson, Deputy Director of Communications from Office of the Premier of Alberta

A spokesperson from Environment Canada emailed, “Since the evolution of global temperature is observed over more than 150 years, temperature changes are collected over periods longer than just a few months. As a result, we suggest that you consult the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Executive Summary’s introduction for an overview of the temperature changes since the pre-industrial period: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf“[4. Email from Environment Canada.]

Dale Marshall, from Environmental Defence, responded, “The planet has warmed by just under 1 degree C so far compared to pre-industrial times. Because the GHG/temperature system has inertia in it, some additional warming is certain. The question you are asking is whether we will for sure surpass 1.5 degrees C given the atmospheric concentration of GHGs. There haven’t been a lot of analyses done on the 1.5 degree limit but my understanding is that we are not destined to breach this threshold, though it’s clear that emissions will have to be decreased very quickly in order to limit warming to this temperature. With the Paris Agreement specifically citing the 1.5 degree limit, more scientific analyses will no doubt be coming out over the coming months and years, which will give us a clearer picture. Given that, I would say that the 1.5 degree limit is still possible but action has to be many times what has been committed. The 2 degree limit is very much still possible, though it will also require rapid and decisive action leading to a sharp reduction in global GHGs.”[5. Email from Dale Marshall, National Program Manager at Environmental Defence]

George Heyman, British Columbia’s Opposition (NDP) Spokesperson for Environment, Green Economy and Technology, said,”It is certainly unlikely that we can hold the rise to 2 degrees if we continue to do nothing and fail to have a local, provincial, national and international climate action plans. In British Columbia, we have legislated targets for 2020 and 2050. The Government admits, and the Climate Leadership confirmed, that we are not going to meet the targets for 2020. The Climate Action team made a number of recommendations, including new targets for 2030 and the existing target for 2050, and recently expressed deep concern that the provincial government failed to respond to its’ own appointed team in a timely manner. I share that concern.”[6. Roy L Hales interview with George Heyman, MLA for Vancouver-Fairview, and Opposition Spokesperson for Environment, Green Economy & Technology]

Matt Horne, of the Pembina Institute and member of B.C’s Climate Leadership Team, wrote:

“If BC were to implement the climate leadership team’s recommendations, I absolutely think it would help. Taking action would stop carbon pollution from rising in BC and get the province back on track to its targets. It would also help contribute to national momentum and beyond as countries and sub-national jurisdictions begin to act on the Paris agreement.”

“At the same time, its also important to acknowledge that it wouldn’t be enough. All jurisdictions – including BC – will need to find ways of ramping up climate action if we’re going to reach that bar. That concept of increasing ambition over time was embedded in the Paris Agreement and the Vancouver Declaration, and should ultimately be embedded in BC’s climate plan.”[7. Email from Matt Horne, Associate Regional Director, British Columbia, the Pembina Institute]

Dr. Lynne Quarmby, professor of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry at Simon Fraser University and Green Party of Canada Critic for Science Policy, agreed with Dr. Zickfeld, “It is clear that we will soon pass an average anomaly of +1.5 degrees Celsius. While some governments are taking serious action on climate, Canada is not. Unless Canada and other laggards begin to act with the urgency required, I agree with the statement that it is unlikely that we can hold the rise to 2 degrees.”[8. Email from Lynne Quarmby, professor of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry at Simon Fraser University]

Matthew Williamson, Deputy Director of Communications from
Office of the Premier of Alberta, believes we can still keep within a 2 degree C average Global temperature rise:

“The Government of Alberta accepts the science of climate change, and that it poses a real risk to Alberta’s economic and environmental well-being. Alberta cannot solve global climate change on its own, however, it can and will do its fair share to reduce emissions and to demonstrate leadership to other energy producing jurisdictions that significant action can be taken to reduce emissions and diversify the energy economy. Transitioning to a new low carbon future cannot be accomplished overnight.

This is discussed in the Climate Panel Report to the Environment Minister, “In the recently-released 2015 World Energy Outlook from the International Energy Agency (IEA), the global supply of coal, oil, and natural gas in scenarios reflecting some additional action on greenhouse gases (New Policies) and aggressive action to meet a 2°C goal (450 ppm) are explored:

“As this figure shows, a global 2°C transition would imply eventual decreases in coal, oil, and natural gas use, but the transitions do not all involve decreases beginning at the same time or at the same rate. In a world with coordinated 2°C policies, we should expect that natural gas consumption will increase significantly above today’s levels and remain there through the next three decades, while coal would ideally decline quickly from today’s levels. Oil’s transition would likely lie between the two, with relative stability in the near term at today’s levels, followed by a decline to 2008 levels before 2030 and an accelerating decline rate over the next decade to 2040. Underlying all of this would be a significant push for energy efficiency, with total global energy consumption held close to today’s levels despite increasing population and economic growth. With these conditions in place, global emissions would peak by 2020 and decline rapidly to close to half today’s levels by 2040. In the IEA’s 450ppm scenario, roughly a 2°C trajectory, global emissions would be 20% above 1990 levels by 2030, and 9% below 1990 levels by 2040.”[9. Email from Matthew Williamson, Deputy Director of Communications from Office of the Premier of Alberta]

2. Will The Consequences Of Present Climate Actions Be Future Events?

Figure SPM.1(d) Global anthropogenic CO2 emissions from forestry and other land use as well as from burning of fossil fuel, cement production and aring. Cumulative emissions of CO2 from these sources and their uncertainties are shown as bars and whiskers, respectively, on the right hand side. The global effects of the accumulation of CH4 and N2O emissions are shown in panel c. Greenhouse gas emission data from 1970 to 2010 are shown in Figure SPM.2. {Figures 1.1, 1.3, 1.5} – Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers, IPCC

“That’s absolutely true. I think it is human nature to only look at what is immediately in front of us, but what has been in front of us the last couple of years is increasing numbers and severity of forest fires and increasing levels of drought. I think California is in its’ eleventh year and the Northwest is in its’ second or third year. The predictions are that these will continue and get worse. We can’t wait to see the worst impacts before we take action, because they will be followed by many more years of impact. We need to both lessen our Green House Gas emissions as well as adapt to the changes we are in the middle of today and will see more of in the future. We really can’t continue to act as if we have a lot of time to make decisions because it is pretty clear that we don’t,” said Mr Heyman.

The spokesperson from Environment Canada emailed, “Climate change is occurring globally. This is evidenced by changes in average temperature and precipitation; melting snow, glaciers, and sea ice; thawing permafrost; and changes in extremes including heat waves, droughts, and floods. While it is difficult to attribute a particular extreme event to climate change, scientists have shown that anthropogenic climate change has played a role in altering the probability or severity of certain extreme events.”

Mr Marshall added, “Over the short- to medium-term, the planet will continue to warm. Extreme weather events are therefore going to get worse, since they are a product of the amount of energy in the atmospheric system. So action we are taking today are to limit warming and extreme weather events in the future. I’d say that includes near-term events as well as those that are years or decades away.”

To which Dr. Quarmby added, “In addition to extreme weather events, the uneven warming means that in some areas the temperature increase will be much higher than average, exacerbating droughts and supporting hotter and more frequent wildfires. There will be deluges and floods. We are seeing loss of snow pack that will worsen water shortages. Changing weather patterns and unusual temperatures will continue to accelerate the rate of species extinctions. We are currently losing species faster than at any time since the extinction of the dinosaurs. In the oceans, warming, acidification, changing currents and reduced oxygen are already causing loss of marine species. Sea level rise will impact coastal cities around the globe. The extreme weather will impact food production and distribution and the cost of food will continue to rise.”

3. Is The Earth’s Battery “Running Down”

Mr Heyman said, (the PNAS report’s statement that we are rapidly going through our planet’s carbon reserves) ” … is a very technical scientific question and I am not qualified to answer. What I can say is that we know that biomass stores carbon and therefore we have to do as much as possible to maintain biomass that sequesters carbon in its’ natural state.”

Mr Marshall wrote, “There is no doubt that the loss of biodiversity is an existential problem for humans and other life forms. The earth’s biosphere is what sustains human life and our high quality of life because, without it, we don’t have clean air, clean water, or plentiful food. The depletion of the biosphere and biodiversity is therefore a problem that has to be addressed in parallel with climate change. Like climate change, we know what the solutions are, we just don’t know whether humans will collectively implement them or not.”

A spokesperson from Natural Resources Canada responded,

“The main contribution of the PNAS paper is to stress the importance of maintaining a critical level of biomass for sustaining global ecosystem process and not to describe changes in living biomass over time.

“The paper uses another study (Smil V (2011) Harvesting the biosphere: The human impact.Popul Dev Rev 37(4):613–636) to report on biomass losses due to human activities during the last centuries. The methodology used by Smil is unclear. It is therefore difficult to give an opinion on the accuracy of the statement.

“Essentially, the answer will vary depending on the time period and on the region considered. Over the past decades, the use of reliable data indicated that forest were globally still a carbon sink but conservation effort should be maintained and enhanced in certain region for this function to remain.”[10. The Natural Resources Canada response was conveyed via an email from Environment Canada]

Dr. Quarmby also had questions about the PNAS study, “While I agree that there is a crisis, I don’t find the analysis in this paper to be particularly useful and my reasons are too many to cite here. Suffice to say: Based on my understanding of the science and the insufficient action of governments, it is almost certainly true that it is now too late for an orderly transition to a post-carbon economy. Human society is in for a rough ride. Will we survive as a species? Will life on earth survive? The ultimate answer to both of those questions is probably no. But life will almost certainly survive human-caused climate change – that is to say, some creatures will make it, others won’t, and new species will arise. Humans? Yes, I think that we will make it, with some tremendous and welcome reorganization of our societies.”

4. Will The Number & Severity of Extreme Weather Events Increase?

Mr Marshall agreed, “The data is clear that the number of extreme weather events is increasing at a rapid rate, leading to higher risks for human life.”

A spokesperson from Environment Canada emailed, “Climate change is expected to affect the intensity and frequency of extremes.”

“I think everybody knows we are seeing more extreme weather events, more frequently. While it is difficult to pin any one forest fire or weather event on Climate Change, the pattern is clear. There are fatalities, as well as significant destruction of property, living space, infrastructure and economic damage. All of this is another reason governments at every level need to work together to develop a climate action plan,” said Mr Heyman.

5. Should Canada Build New Fossil Fuel Infrastructure?

A Spokesperson from Environment Canada emailed, “The Government of Canada has been clear that our aim is for development to occur in an environmentally sustainable manner. A strong economy and a clean environment go hand-in-hand. Reducing emissions will make our economy more competitive, not less. All Canadians need to work together to reduce our environmental footprint as we focus on economic growth and environmental sustainability.”

Mr Williamson, from the Office Premier of Alberta, wrote:

“Importantly, According to the IEA, a 2°C policy path is not inconsistent with significant investments in any of the major fossil fuel categories, including oil and gas. In fact, they estimate that almost $20 trillion will still be invested globally, between now and 2040, to meet oil and gas demand under their 450ppm scenario. They estimate that a further $50 trillion will be invested globally in cleaner electricity supply and end-use efficiency. Global markets for all forms of energy supply and technology will present opportunities for Alberta as the world acts on climate change.”

“This is why the Government of Alberta has chosen to phase out coal-fired emissions by 2030, and invest in renewables as well as energy efficiency. It is also why the government believes that developing its conventional energy resources are consistent with doing its fair share to address global climate change, so long as those resources are developed in a responsible and increasingly carbon competitive nature. This is why the Climate Leadership Plan includes an emissions limit on oilsands production, as well as introducing an economy wide carbon levy to drive the most cost effective emissions reductions across the province. This policy suite is amongst the most aggressive in North America, particularly amongst energy producing jurisdictions.”

Mr Heyman added,

“I don’t know that Canada should put a stop to all fossil fuel infrastructure, but if what the scientist and politicians themselves are telling us is true – that we need to be almost entirely weaned off fossil fuels by 2050 – then whatever development we do needs to be in that context. Everyone needs to know that we are in the process of winding down, not winding up.

“The greenhouse gas emissions associated with fossil fuel projects has to be part of their environmental assessment and has to fit within an overall greenhouse gas emission plan.

“The recent recommendations of the Climate Leadership Team in B.C. said ‘within this plan there is room for some development of Liquid Natural Gas under these conditions that would control the emissions associated with upstream extraction, transport, and liquefaction. I am neither an engineer or a scientist, and I have to assume that this team of people from the business community, First Nations, local government and the environmental movement worked with people who did both the emissions and economic modelling to come up with these answers.”

A spokesperson from British Columbia’s Ministry of Environment emailed:

The Climate Leadership Team’s report showed we can have an LNG industry while achieving our GHG reduction goals.

Our greenhouse gas emissions benchmark will make B.C.’s LNG facilities the cleanest in the world, and our LNG facilities will pay one of the highest carbon taxes in the world.

B.C. is already making progress in reducing upstream emissions.

We’ve brought in rules which have virtually eliminated routine flaring.

We are addressing methane emissions, in part through a leak detection program.

We’re increasingly using electricity to power gas production, with further electrification underway so we can substantially reduce emissions.

And as part of the world’s cleanest LNG we’re establishing a technology fund that will allow for further investments in upstream methane reductions.

We are also working closely with industry/stakeholders to identify other ways to reduce emissions, including carbon capture and storage. We are working on a regulatory framework for this now.

As well, climate change is a global issue. By supplying the cleanest burning fossil fuel possible, B.C. can contribute to global development and the fight against climate change.

For example, B.C.’s LNG could play a critical role in helping China reduce its use of coal-fired electricity.

We know the lifecycle GHG emissions of B.C. LNG would be 20 per cent lower than those from coal produced and consumed in China.

The amount of emissions the country could avoid is twice B.C.’s entire GHG emissions output.[11. Email from British Columbia’s Ministry of the Environment]

To which Matt Horne of the Pembina Institute, a member of B.C.’s Climate Leadership Team, responded:

“The main issue I have with the comments is that the BC government has not acted on the Climate Leadership Team’s recommendations. The modelling underpinning our work did include some LNG development proceeding and it showed that it was possible to get back on track for the province’s climate targets if they implemented the full package of recommendations we provided. To date, they haven’t moved on any of those recommendations and as a result carbon pollution is rising and projected to continue rising based on the current policies in place.

A second point to make is regarding climate change being a global issue. While I agree that climate change is a global issue, I disagree with the province’s arguments about LNG exports for two reasons. First, they assume that LNG exports will be displacing coal, but they could just as easily be competing with other sources of gas, or delaying investments in renewables and energy efficiency. Second, whether exports of LNG increase or decrease emissions in Asia, Canada is ultimately still responsible for the emissions it produces – that’s the international framework we are a part of and for the world to have any chance of being successful, all jurisdictions need to play by the rules.[

B.C. Green party leader Andrew Weaver, a former Canada Research Chair in climate modelling and analysis in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, emailed, “All of the statements (Global temperature increase is close to 1.5 degrees; the earth’s battery is running down; extreme weather events will increase etc) are accurate from a scientific perspective. And yes, that means it makes no sense at all to invest in new fossil fuel infrastructure,.”[12. Email from Andrew Weaver, a former Canada Research Chair in climate modelling and analysis in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head, & Leader of the B.C. Green Party]

“Building new fossil fuel infrastructure during our climate crisis will only make things worse. New pipelines and LNG projects would last for decades, long after the world needs to have abandoned fossil fuels. At the Paris climate talks, world leaders agreed to do everything possible to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Yet we are already approaching those temperatures. We cannot expand the tar sands or build a new LNG industry if we are to have any hope of a safe climate,”added Peter McCartney of the Wilderness Committee.[13. Email from Peter McCartney, Climate Campaigner, Wilderness Committee]

Dr. Quarmby responded, “It breaks my heart that Canada is still talking about building new fossil fuel infrastructure including pipelines, LNG projects and coal ports. The world likes Canada. We are not heavy weights when it comes to shifting the global carbon story, but we can be trend setters. If Canada were to step up and start taking bold action, the world would notice. The world would find the courage to follow. To me, this is a moral issue. No matter how dire things might seem, to not act effectively and urgently on climate is to do violence to others – our children and those living in places hit hardest by the new extremes, such as the heat today in India. Recently, when Minister McKenna approved the Woodfibre LNG facility, I felt ill.”

The Need For Clear Set Targets

George Heyman, the NDP critic for the Environment, said, “I think it is the responsibility of both the Provincial and Federal Governments to develop a Climate Action Plan that enables us to meet the targets we need to meet as our responsibility to address Climate Change. It is only when we have targets, and a plan to meet them sector by sector, that we can create the climate where people who are looking at any kind of development understand the overall rules under which we are operating. That has been lacking in British Columbia. It has led to a lot of uncertainty, concern about climate implications and a lack of social license. For environmental reasons, as well as economic, we need to get on with it …. If we fail to do that we will be making ad hoc decisions that are quite possibly irresponsible and certainly won’t help us get to the carbon free future that we need if we are going to have communities in which we can live.”

Matt Horne, from BC’s Climate Leadership Team, wrote:

“If BC were to implement the climate leadership team’s recommendations, I absolutely think it would help. Taking action would stop carbon pollution from rising in BC and get the province back on track to its targets. It would also help contribute to national momentum and beyond as countries and sub-national jurisdictions begin to act on the Paris agreement.”

“At the same time, its also important to acknowledge that it wouldn’t be enough. All jurisdictions – including BC – will need to find ways of ramping up climate action if we’re going to reach that bar. That concept of increasing ambition over time was embedded in the Paris Agreement and the Vancouver Declaration, and should ultimately be embedded in BC’s climate plan.”

“The (Federal) NDP applauded the federal government’s commitment in Paris to a 1.5 degree target, but we are disappointed with their continued lack of a clear set of targets, and accountability mechanisms to ensure targets are achieved. Canadians recognize that the science of climate change is real and pressing, and that’s why they voted overwhelmingly for change last October. The Liberals must match their rhetoric with real action. Canada and the planet cannot afford any more delay and dithering.” emailed M.P. Nathan Cullen, Environment & Climate Change Critic for the Federal NDP.[14. Email from the office of Nathan Cullen, MP for Skeena Bulkley Valley and Environment & Climate Change Critic for the New Democratic Party of Canada]

Dale Marshall, from Environmental Defence, added, “Canada should put a stop to all energy projects that do not allow us to fulfill our commitments under the Paris Agreement on climate change. That’s why the federal government should implement a climate test for all energy projects. This test would allow the Canadian government to determine if an energy project under consideration is compatible with limiting warming to well below 2 degrees or 1.5 degrees. Any project that does not allow Canada to do its fair share to limit warming as laid out in the Paris Agreement should not be approved.”

A Distillation of Arguments

I interviewed (by email or skype) a dozen participants for the report above: three were scientists (Zickfeld, Quarmby, Weaver); three were environmentalists (from Environmental Defence, the Pembina Institute & Wilderness Committee); two were British Columbian M.L.A.s (Heyman, Weaver) and one was an M.P. from British Columbia (Cullen); There were also spokespersons from the Governments of Alberta, B.C. and Canada.

Everyone agreed that Climate Change is real, that the associated extreme weather events are getting worse, and actions must be taken to combat it.

Though everyone agrees we are burning up the world’s biomass, no one endorsed the PNAS study that suggests close to 50% is gone. Both Dr Quarmby and Natural Resources Canada question that report.

All three of the participating scientists believe that the average global temperature rise is close to 1.5 degrees C, though we have not yet crossed that threshold. Though we were already at 1.6 degrees in February, the spokesperson from Environment Canada was correct when he said average global temperatures are measured over longer periods of time. Dr Zickfeld said we may cross that threshold this year.

Spokespersons from all three Governments stated we can continue to expand the nation’s fossil fuel infrastructure and should be able to keep the Global temperature rise under 2 degrees:

The Environment Canada spokesperson expressed this as a matter of policy: “The Government of Canada has been clear that our aim is for …,” rather than scientific opinion.

The BC Ministry of the Environment spokesperson cited their Climate Leadership Team’s report’s conclusions that BC can have an LNG industry & still achieve its’ emission goals – but the province has yet to implement the recommendations that the report states would make “SOME LNG development” possible.

The Government of Alberta spokesperson agreed the world is going to be winding down fossil fuel development, but cite the International Energy Agency’s recently released 2015 report that states there is still room expand fossil fuel infrastructure “so long as those resources are developed in a responsible and increasingly carbon competitive nature.”

This is from an email that came to the ECOreport, the posting date he mentions is from a repost to another site :

Hi Roy, My name is John Schramski and I am the lead author of the battery paper. Your Questioning Canada’s Fossil Fuel Emissions article on 6/1 was well done. Your efforts are very much appreciated and we are grateful that you included our paper in the discussion. I would like to add two points to the discussion thus far.

1) The battery paper initiates several compelling concepts we personally ponder ourselves (e.g., how much biomass have we actually lost and how fast are we losing it? Can we quantify this in the food web, as one example, with large species die offs? What actionable information should we be pursuing? What then should we be doing? etc.).

But the main point of the manuscript was to lay out the entire thermodynamic model (i.e., inputs, outputs, storage, etc.) for all to understand and contemplate the seriousness of the earth’s natural balance of biotic energy. Until now, we’ve ignored the ramifications of limitless energy provided to humans, but the reality is that the energetic balance of the planet is far more serious. The charging of our battery occurred over evolutionary time yet our current sustainability metrics are not accounting for this level of importance as we burn through the stocks. Until now, absent this knowledge/perspective, we’ve been ridiculously reckless with our biomass destruction.

2) The actual magnitude of biomass on the planet is a bit of a secondary aspect of the paper only to help everyone understand how all energy can be quantified and accounted, and specifically to articulate the serious problem we have created with the planet’s thermodynamic balance (i.e., unidirectional discharge). The main point of the paper mentioned above remains very serious whether our biomass levels are at 30% or 70% of initial conditions. As such, this research was never intended to be, nor did it need to be, a statistical meta-analysis of the biomass estimates of the world. However, we hope the model more clearly delineates the critical importance of biomass and everyone starts fighting for its preservation for very serious reasons. It’s crazy that this may sound crazy, but we have to stop chopping down trees, literally everywhere.

To begin the conversation, from what we found and articulated in the paper, reasonable estimates of biomass destruction are terrible, i.e., we think ~45% in the last 2000 years is a very very credible starting point for the initial analysis. Unfortunately, there are worse estimates for those who would be interested in delving into the science of biomass estimation. Although we hope for higher estimates, we are reasonable people and tend to agree with our findings given the massive degree of urban and agricultural expansion that we see everywhere we look throughout all of our personal travels and the changes witnessed in our lifetimes. We cover these numbers in the manuscript. There are some countries still rich in biomass, but they can’t supply the growth of the world forever. Also, since we live in the exponential age, everything is happening fast.

I sincerely hope this helps. Perhaps you can send this info to the panelists or post it with the article so that it’s available for reference. If these options are not available, no worries. I am available to answer anyone’s questions on any of these matters. Thanks again for your article. John Schramski